Problems with the Big Bang theory

[Reach]

In the proposed theory of the Big Bang, there was a particle (not the correct terminology, mind you) that was near infinitely small and near infinitely condensed. That ball of matter, in short, got too small for it's own good and blew up

Uh. This is a serious misunderstanding of the Big Bang, though quite common. There was no matter at the beginning of the universe. It didn't get 'too small and blow up' either, since there was no matter. The first particles were not seen until after the Big Bang, and developed due to 1. an incredibly high energy density expansion 2. Super high temperatures and 3. Super high pressures. The Big Bang was not a classical explosion in that something exploded. Rather, it was an expansion of energy with all points trying to rush away from one another.

It would be illogical to say that there was ever a time where no matter existed

There was no matter in the early Big Bang. E=mc^2...matter is just another manifestation of energy and resulted from the Big Bang itself.

Well, one of the potential solutions to the question of how such a superdense particle could have existed is the "Big Bang/Big Crunch" model that proposes something similar to the universe expanding until the force of the Big Bang has dissipated, and then condensing back in on itself in a "Big Crunch" eventually leading to another Big Bang.

This one is dying out in popularity, mostly due to the discovery of the incredibly high density of dark energy in the universe. The universe is on a runaway course to infinity, expanding faster and faster until everything is destroyed due to entropy. So uh, yea, the idea is pretty much useless in explaining anything now >_>

Having an omnipotent being that is free of the bindings of time and space that created the universe has just as many holes in evidence as a superparticle in an unmeasurable amount of nothing exploding into planets that have particles that line themselves up to make beings with consciousness

Not really. Alright, your simplistic view of the Big Bang Theory in an attempt to degrade it's status aside, we can study quite carefully the evolution of the universe. The progress is quite slow, but we've come a long way and have a long way to go. There are several ways to look back at the early universe scientifically (old light observations, cosmic microwave background radiation left from the big bang, general relativity etc), and they are most certainly not dainty blind choices. Of course looking at what caused the Big Bang is pure speculation...but we are most certainly closer to the answer by making smart guesses (based on what we do know), compared to pulling it out of our ass because of emotional necessity thousands of years ago. >_>

I mean, there aren't 'holes' in 'having an omnipotent creator' since there is no evidence to suggest there is one in the first place. Anyone that thinks there is is highly mistaken. It's faith. I can respect it, but a knowledgeable theist should be able to recognize what they see is not evidence, but a specific untestable interpretation of the world around them. If that is satisfying than so be it.